AuthorTopic: Russian = URM? (Read 19150 times)

UMHBmom

i'm not sure why you selected just males, but according to those stats whites are terribly underrepresented. also, you're citing BA's and above, we're talking specifically JD's. i'm not saying your sample might not be relevant, i'm saying i have no way of knowing. you'd be better off citing statistics that are 100% on point.

anyway UMHBmom 's point was (and she'll correct me if i'm wrong, and then it will be my point) is that those categories of dividing people up are political categories. if you dont want to call them political, use a different term, but they are not at all the best way to divide up population. immigrants, for example, cannot be said to have adequate representation simply because whites might be adequately represented and the immigrants in discussion have a white complexion.

Bingo! I really need to learn to more succinct. You said in a dozen lines what I said in an essay. Gotta learn this.

Logged

TLFKARG

What does it serve a Pakistani immigrant if there are proportionally more Pakistani with advanced degrees if 98% of them are doctors and engineers and he's sitting in jail? I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about the legal community. Lawyers are defenders of the people and definers of the culture, and as such special emphasis should be placed on equal representation. I'm not confused in the way that you think I am.

I am not really sure if this is relevant. AA is meant to equalize the playing field for those who were historically disadvantaged. It was not designed to encourage a certain racial group to pursue a specific profession, but rather to give everyone equal opportunities at education in general. AA in the law school context is designed to help those whose education prior to law school may have been insufficient to give him the scores necessary to attend law school. AA takes into account the socio-economic and racial disadvantage faced by his group and, if the applicant shows promise, allows him some slack in terms of scores. Part of having a democratic society is allowing people to make choices about where they work. Not a lot of white people run Japanese restaurants. Should be have AA to encourage them to do so? If no educational, social or racial barrier exists between a member of a group and his going into a certain profession, we should not institute AA for that group simple to encourage them to pursue it. AA addresses the problem of those who want to and can't, not those who can and don't want to. Does it really make sense to cut someone slack in his scores if he had every opportunity to make them competitive?

I will admit to being confused by your argument. On the one hand, you say that URM status should be awarded only to those who meet three criteria: they must be culturally distinct, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and fighting racial bias. When I point out to you that Asians fit this criteria, you say that there is an added element: a clearly-defined URM is one who dodges bullets while crossing the street in inner-city Chicago. So then I'll add that the Pakistani now must contend with the current wave of xenophobia washing across the nation. His mosque is bombed and he homeschools his kids because they get beat up at school. Yet he STILL does not qualify because he fails your litmus test: he is not black or hispanic. My point was never to take anything away from black and Hispanic applicants, but to suggest that lack of sufficient representation afflicts people who belong to minority cultures within majority races, and the needs of these people are not being addressed.

You seem to be missing the difference between a necessary vs. sufficient argument.

Given those numbers, do you continue to think that Asians and Whites deserve the benefits of AA?

Well......... it looks as if whites do. Seriously, what are you trying to prove? If the purpose of AA is to ensure that advanced degree holders are proportionate by race to society as a whole, then (info from 2000 Census, races represented as whole or in part, thus totals more than 100):

77.1% of Whites should hold advanced degrees

12.9% of Blacks should hold advanced degrees

12.5% of Hispanics should hold advanced degrees

1.5% of Native Americans should hold advanced degrees

4.2% of Asians should hold advanced degrees

0.3% of Native Hawaiians should hold advanced degrees

6.6% of the ubiquitous "other" should hold advanced degrees

Statistics. BTW, your numbers don't come to 100%. Who's missing?

Quote

Your logic is really flawed. You are taking a race's representation within the entire population and applying them to advanced degree holders within a racial category. Whoa, sister! MY logic certainly doesn't imply this. I posted those numbers to imply that if the same opportunities were afforded to everyone, the percentages of advanced degree holders within each ethnic group would be a lot closer to one another. After all, it would be preposterous to assume that only 8% of Hispanics hold advanced degrees because only 8% want them. It seems logical to think that, all things being equal, the percentage of people desiring advanced degrees should not vary so significantly by race. 42% to 8%? C'mon, you know that's ridiculous!

My numbers don't come out to 100 because I left out the "other" category.

russians are not URM because they are white. AA is intended to help those that were beaten up by the system to the extent that their community never recovered ie Mexicans and Blacks. So Asian communities recovered as did Jewish and are not considered URM. Immigrants would not be considered URM because the US did not opress their people...doesnt that make sense?

russians are not URM because they are white. AA is intended to help those that were beaten up by the system to the extent that their community never recovered ie Mexicans and Blacks. So Asian communities recovered as did Jewish and are not considered URM. Immigrants would not be considered URM because the US did not opress their people...doesnt that make sense?

russians are not URM because they are white. AA is intended to help those that were beaten up by the system to the extent that their community never recovered ie Mexicans and Blacks. So Asian communities recovered as did Jewish and are not considered URM. Immigrants would not be considered URM because the US did not opress their people...doesnt that make sense?

1950's ring a bell?

What Stalin did was atrocious, no doubt. However, those events have absolutely NO bearing on a Russian immigrant's opportunities for educational and economic success in the United States today, or ever.

EDIT: I just realized you were referring to the Cold War. Sorry, I am a little slow at 2 a.m. Either way, the political tension between Russia and the US does not preclude Russians from attaining their educational goals in the US to the same degree that URM's.

TLFKARG

Everyone got oppressed at one point or another. AA is not designed to right those wrongs. AA asks the question: does this group of people face inherent systemic and systematic oppression? For modern Russian immigrants, the answer to that question is clearly no.

in any event, the use of URM has nothing to do with oppression, disadvantage etc...i mean politically it might and these may or may not be the reasons behind any given group being underrepresented, but that has nothing to do with why certain groups are given urm status and others are not.

certain groups are given urm status simply because they are underrepresented, regardless of whether they were previously disadvantaged or not. the central point umhbmom raise is that it seems the way these groups are divided to ensure equal representation is highly flawed.